ac 


■p  5c 


To  the  Presbyterian  Church 

in  the  United  States,  Greeting: 


FOREIGN  MISSIONS. 


/ 

5 5 ’-O.W.5 


DI{.  CTIESTER\S  OFFICL^L  CRITICISM  AXD 
SPURIOUS  DOCTRINE  OF  MISSIONS. 


The  occasion  of  this  criticism  was  a communication  from 
my  pen  published  in  the  Presbyterian  Standard  and  the 
S.  ir.  Presbyterian — for  which  I now  thank  them — entitled: 
“Pou-land  for  an  Oliver — Anent  Organic  Union.”  Mdiilst 
such  valiant  leaders  as  Bishop  Gordon  and  Professors  Reed 
and  Strickler,  with  others,  were  industriously  smoothing  out 
tlie  kinkles  of  the  Northern  Church,  it  occurred  to  me  that 
perhaps  it  might  come  in  place,  with  some  of  them,  to  as- 
sist in  a like  service  to  the  Southern  Church;  and,  as  kinks 
worthy  of  notice.  The  Tolerance  of  Polygamy  and  The 
Negative  Character  of  our  Foreign  ^Mission  AVork  were  in- 
stanced. 

But,  lo!  as  a chartered  corporation  has  full  charge  of  our 
foreign  missions,  its  Secretary  and  Treasurer  belligerently 
rushed  forth,  as  its  official  spokesman  and  apologist,  and  ad- 
ministered to  me  a regulation  dose  of  objurgatory  criticism, 
officiously  warning  the  people  of  our  Church  “not  to  be 
alarmed  by  any  of  the  statements  contained  in  the  article  of 
Dr.  Laws.”  This,  of  course,  is  a startled  confession  that,  if 
the  matters  alleged  are  true,  they  are  alarming.  In  this  I 
agree  with  him. 

I term  Dr.  Chester’s  criticism  “official”  for  the  reason  that 
he  claims  that  it  is  “made  by  the  Foreign  Mission  office,” 
i.  e.,  the  office  of  the  chartered  corporation  of  which  he  is' a 
co-Secretary  and  the  Treasurer,  and  not  of  the  Southern  As- 
sembly or  Church,  except  vicariously. 

Verj^  well,  I propose  to  answer  my  official  critic,  and  to  re- 
fute his  spurious  theory  of  foreign  missions.  The  newspaper 


2 


article  which  was  the  trumpet  blast  that  waked  up  this  offi- 
cial apologist  was  only  a partial  statement  of  an  exposure  of 
the  condition  of  our  foreign  missions,  for  which  this  Char- 
tered Corporation  is  primarily  responsible,  that  was  made 
on  the  floor  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia  at  its  meeting  in  Staun- 
ton last  fall.  So  far  from  my  critic  furnishing  a valid  reason 
for  the  recall,  or  even  the  modification  of  the  points  made 
(then  and  there  or  since  then),  I now  j)ropose  to  make  a 
fuller  restatement  and  to  challenge  refutation.  Indeed,  we 
shall  see  that  my  critic  has  substantially  confessed  the  ca.>c 
and  has  been  exceedingly  unfortunate,  in  both  his  informa- 
tion and  his  judgment,  in  his  vain  attempt  at  avoidance. 

My  statement  before  the  Synod  was  substantially  and 
now  is ; 

1.  That  our  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  has  not  an 
individual  church  in  its  organic  connection  in  all  the 
heathen  world — not  one.  After  some  fifty  years  of  labor 
and  the  expenditure  of  perhaps  more  than  five  million  dol- 
lars, not  to  speak  of  the  precious  lives  that  have  been  .sacri- 
ficed, there  is  not  a church  session,  not  a Presbytery,  nor  a 
Synod  of  our  Church  connection  in  the  entire  foreign  mis- 
sion field. 

2.  That  in  our  Assembly  minutes  of  190G  there  are  given 
among  the  mission  statistics  over  ten  thousand  (10,824) 
“communicants;”  and  yet  not  one  of  them  is  a member  of 
an}’  organized  church  under  our  care  and  control,  although 
they  are  served  by  missionaries  and  evangelists  at  our  cost 
and  often  referred  to  by  correspondents,  in*  addresses  to 
the  church  and  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Assembly,  as  church 
members.  Our  people  are  accustomed  to  associate  com- 
municants with  church  membership,  and  in  all  confiding 
simplicity,  in  the  absence  of  contrary  information,  under- 
stand them  to  have  a like  membership  in  the  mission  field. 

It  cannot  be  truthfully  denied  that  this  is  in  general  the 
actual  state  of  mind  among  what  our  critic  condescendingly 
calls  the  “ordinary  people”  of  our  Church.  And  I confess 
myself  to  have  been  among  the  deluded. 


3 


3.  That,  in  our  African  IMission,  where  over  four  ihou- 
yand  baptized  converts  were  reported  last  year — now  prob- 
ably over  five  thousand  (5,000) — there  is  not  a single 
church  session  for  government  and  discipline — no,  not  a 
church  oi’ganization  of  any  kind,  congregational  or  other- 
wise. And  5'et  oiir  mission  work  has  been  carried  on  con- 
tinuously at  that  Luebo  mission  since  Lapsley  founded  it,  in 
1891 — over  fifteen  years  since. 

And  yet,  in  spite  of  this  esoteric  information.  Dr.  Mor- 
rison and  INIr.  Sheppard,  during  their  recent  home  sojourn 
of  several  years,  were  again  and  again  introduced  to  our 
liome  churches  and  public  audiences  as  the  ministers  or 
pastors  of  the  largest  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  world;  and 
they  addressed  their  audiences  as  representing  this  church. 
Our  people  are  misled  by  this  unorganized  multitude  of 
baptized  converts  being  spoken  of,  by  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee in  its  reports  and  by  the  Assembly  in  its  proceedings 
and  minutes,  as  a chiirch. 

4.  That  the  nine  (9)  churches  reported  as  organized  in 
tlie  mid-China  Mission,  not  to  speak  of  some  thirty  others, 
are  not  only  not  in  our  ecclesiastical  connection,  but  they  are 
not  even  regularly  organized  Presbyterian  churches,  as  each 
congregation  is  entirely  independent  of  every  other,  so  that 
they  may  be  described  as  independent  or  congregational 
churches ; and  hence  our  Church  is  sailing  under  two  flags — 
Pre.<l>yterianism  at  home  and  independency  or  Congrega- 
tionalism (as  explained)  in  heathen  lands. 

My  critic  makes  a great  parade  over  my  description  of 
these  churches  as  “independent  or  congregational,”  wdiich 
is  literally  and  strictly  accurate,  notwithstanding  his  labored 
attempt,  by  the  use  of  a capital  C in  congregational  (for 
which  I am  not  responsible),  to  give  it  a technical  ec- 
clesiastical sense.  This  was  perfectly  gratuitous,  and  the 
apologist  had  good  reason  to  know  better,  for  the  manifest 
purpose  was  to  concisely  describe  the  undisputed  fact  that 
these  churches  are  individually  organized  as  independent 


4 


congregations,  having  no  organic  connection  with  other 
churches  or  ehurch  courts. 

By  means  of  the  cheap  fallacy  of  changing  the  premise, 
by  virtually  fabrieating  one  to  suit  himself,  in  the  language 
of  college  boys,  he  “rowled” — but  it  blinks  of  being  at  the 
exi)ense  of  fair  dealing  through  carelessness  or  haste. 

5.  Another  and  important  point  made  in  the  statement 
before  the  Synod  was:  That  this  chartered  corporation  has 
had  in  its  employment,  at  the  expense  of  our  Church,  a 
dozen  missionaries  in  the  foreign  field  who  are  not  in  our 
Clnrrch  connection  and  are  not  in  any  way  under  our  dis- 
ciplinary care  and  control.  I referred  to  the  Assembly  min- 
utes of  1906  and  will  now  quote  the  announcement  and 
avowal  there  made,  on  page  237,  which  is  in  the  following 
words : 


“Ordained  Missionaries. — Under  the  care  of  the 
Executive  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions,  but  not 
members  of  any  Presbjderj'-  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States.” 

This  notification  is  in  capitals.  There  follows  a list  of 
twelve  names,  with  their  ecclesiastical  relations.  The  second 
in  the  list  is  a colored  man — “G.  E.  Phipps,  Luebo,  Congo 
Free  State,  Presbytery  of  Lackawanna,  Pa.,  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  U.  S.  A.”  The  others  are  meml^crs  of  the 
Synods  of  Brazil  and  Mexico.  Not  one  of  this  list  holds  a 
])osition  of  rc.q)onsibility  to  our  Church  for  his  doctrine, 
preaching,  or  conduct.  The  corporation  simply  hires  them 
at  a given  compensation.  This  is  a loose  way  of  doing  busi- 
ness. It  is  too  plainly  at  fault  for  comment.  In  strictness, 
what  authority  have  these  men  to  baptize  converts  or  to 
organize  churches  in  any  other  ecclesiastical  church  connec- 
tion than  their  own  ? But  this  corporation  employs  them  to 
organize  churches  in  no  particular  connection.  Hudson 
Taylor  employed  missionaries  of  any  denomination,  and 


5 


each  might  organize  cluu'(‘hes  as  he  saw  fit;  but  once  or- 
ganized, the  church  was  to  coiitiime  in  that  line.  This 
])seudo-Presbyteriau  scheme  is  no  better. 

6.  This  chartered  corporation,  to  which  the  entire  manage- 
ment and  control  of  our  foreign  mission  work  is  entrusted 
throughout  the  heathen  world,  tolerates  polygamy  among 
its  baptized  converts  and  so-called  communicants  and  church 
members,  in  both  ^Vfrica  and  China.  There  can  be  no  truth- 
ful denial  of  this.  And  thus  this  sanctioned  agency  is,  be- 
yond question,  harboring  pei’sonal  and  tamily  licentiousness 
among  its  converts  and  beneficiaries  without  disapproval  1)V 
Presbyteries,  Synods,  or  General  Assembly. 

It  is  a strange  freak,  that  it  is  urged  as  a special  virtue  of 
this  non-denoniinational  mission  scheme  of  the  independency 
of  the  individual  mission  churches,  that  if  polygamy  is 
tolerated  in  them,  it  is  their  concern  and  not  ours.  Only 
think  of  it:  Our  missionaries  may  and  do  organize  the.'^e 
“free-born'’  isolated  churches,  and  may  and  do,  without  re- 
straint, baptize  into  their  connection  polygamists;  yet  we  are 
not  responsible  for  putting  these  serpents’  eggs  in  their 
nesks ! 

riven  conceding  the  independency  of  the.se  churches  thus 
constituted,  can  any  man,  who.se  conscience  is  not  absolutely 
debauched,  plead  exemption  in  such  case  from  the  gravest 
responsibility?  Strangely  enough,  it  was  the  following  up 
of  the  amazing  treatment  of  the  Overture  on  ])olyganiy  that 
went  up  to  the  ^Mobile  Assembly  in  1904  and  was  crucified 
in  the  Virginia  Synod  of  1905,  and,  as  some  may  vainly 
think,  laid  away  in  its  grave  by  the  Assemblj^  of  1906,  that 
brought  to  view  the  surprising  discovery  of  the  condition  of 
our  foreign  mission  work  which  the  2^olygamist  party  in  our 
Church  is  zealously  jmrsuiug  and  striving  to  defend. 

If  the  fortune  of  that  Overture  on  iiolygamy  and  the  de- 
fense of  it  in  “Polygamy  and  Citizenship  in  Chvrch  and 
State”  .shall  only  be  to  draw  aside  the  veil  that  has  hid  from 
die  eyes  of  our  people,  whether  “ordinary”  or  extraordinary. 


the  gross  deformity  and  lawlessness  of  that  mission  work  as 
now  eondueted,  a great  and  permanent  benefit  may  result 
to  both  the  Church  and  the  nations. 

I will  now  add  an  item  of  some  interest  in  this  connection. 
When  the  Overture  on  ])olygamy  was  taken  to  the  Greenville 
General  Assembly  by  the  complaint  of  a number  of 
the  members  of  the  Synod  of  Virginia,  the  petition  that 
accompanied  the  complaint  was  that  an  ad  Inferiai  committee 
should  he  a])pointed  to  gather  needed  information  before 
final  action,  although  the  Synod  had  perfectly  competent  re- 
spondents, Dr.  Fleming  being  one  of  them,  the  Secretary 
of  Foreign  ^liasioms,  who  properly  had  no  connection  what- 
ever with  the  case,  chose,  at  the  instance  of  a single  member, 
“to  butt  into  it,”  although  the  complainants  and  petitioners 
])rotested  against  him  as  an  outsider  doing  so.  But  he 
officially  and  officiously  assDted  in  defeating  the  movement 
adverse  to  ]»olygamy  and  in  gaining  a decision  in  favor  of 
its  tolerance  and  of  ignorance. 

7.  1 also  called  attention  to  a financial  and  business  fea- 
ture of  this  Corporation,  the  least  objectionable  point  to  which 
e.vccption  was  taken,  that  seems  to  have  a not  improbable 
bearing  of  importance  on  the  interests  of  our  Church.  It 
is  the  e.stablishment  of  “a  special  donation  fund,”  on  the 
basis  of  graduated  rates  of  interest  for  life  to  all  donors  over 
twenty-one  (21)  up  to  and  over  seventy  (70).  Of  course, 
it  is  iisually  understood  that  all  available  missionary  funds 
are  sini])le  donations.  But  not  so.  To  illustrate  its  inequali- 
ties; From  fifty  to  si.\ty-five  the  so-called  donor  is  to  be  paid 
for  life  five  per  cent,  for  his  money.  If  a donor  at  fifty  turns 
over  to  this  Corj)oration  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  (quite 
a possible  case),  then  he  is  entitled  to  five  thousand  a year 
as  long  as  he  lives.  Suppose  one  such  donor  to  live  till 
ninety — no  extravagant  assumption— then  for  the  forty 
years,  from  fifty  to  ninety,  this  beneficiary  donor  would  be 
entitled  to  two  hundred  thou.sand  dollars.  This  “Executive 
Committee  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States” 


would  be  legally  liable  to  that  amount.  This  may  not  be 
without  example,  and  doubtless  it  is  very  sincerely  intended 
to  subsidize  worldly  wisdom  in  the  interest  of  foreign  mis- 
sions. But  there  may  be  a worm  at  its  root.  There  are  some 
prudent  business  considerations,  without  urging  the  pro- 
priety of  treating  all  mission  donors  alike,  that  may  suggest 
a doubt,  and  the  possibilitj’  of  an  accumulation  of  liabilities 
at  no  very  distant  day,  Hippleizing  our  Church.  The  old 
proverb,  “Penny  wise  and  pound  foolish,”  is  still  worth  re- 
membering. 

Those  who  were  present  on  the  occasion  when  the  above 
strictures  were  made  will  recognize  this  as  a substantial 
restatement  of  what  I then  submitted  to  the  Synod.  No 
member  of  that  body  questioned  the  truthfulness  of  that 
presentation  of  the  condition  of  our  foreign  missions.  Dr. 
Chester  was  present,  and  at  the  conclusion  of  my  remarks, 
for  which  the  Synod  had  allotted  the  time,  and  in  answer 
to  the  inquiry,  “Why  no  church  had  been  organized  in  the 
African  Mission?”  far  from  denying  the  truthfulness  of 
the  presentation  made,  he  replied;  “Because  no  suitable  ma- 
terial could  be  found  for  elders.”  Considering  the  length 
of  time  this  mission  has  been  in  operation — over  15  years — 
and  also  the  fact  that  forty  native  evangelists  are  reported  as 
raised  up  and  now  at  work  there,  this  did  not  seem  like  an 
altogether  satisfactory  answer,  considering  that  one  of  the 
charter  purposes  of  the  corporation  is  '‘to  establish,  maintain 
and  conduct  churches.”  Certainly  this  purpose  has  not  yet 
been  materialized  at-  Luebo. 

Relative  to  the  churches  in  China,  Dr.  Chester  did  not  ques- 
tion their  distinct  and  independent  individual  organization, 
as  described,  but  claimed  that  nevertheless  they  were  really 
Presbyterian  and  not  Congregational  churches.  To  illus- 
trate his  view,  he  gave  the  South  American  case,  at  Aragaiay 
where  some  converted  Roman  Catholics  desired  to  organize 
themselves  into  a Protestant  church,  and  applied  to  a mis- 
sionary, Dr.  Lane,  of  the  Xorthern  Church,  who,  instead  of 


8 


visiting  them  or  giving  them  specific  directions,  advised 
them  to  read  The  Acts  and  Paul’s  Letters  to  Timothy  and 
Titns,  and  then  organize  as  they  deemed  best.  The  result 
was,  he  informed  ns,  that  they  “organized  their  church  hy 
the  election  of  elders  and  deacons”  (the  italics  are  his). 
This  was  the  crucial  test  of  this  heing  a Preshyterian  Church, 
that  it  “elected  elders  and  deacons,”  and  it  thus  served  to 
show  his  view  of  the  Presbyterianism  of  the  Chinese  churches 
in  question.  At  this  point  the  Rev.  J.  K.  Harris,  of  Floyd, 
\’irginia,  asked  Dr.  Chester:  “How  they  would  get  along 
with  a case  of  discijiline?”  Dr.  Chester  replied  that  “they 
would  take  it  before  the  session,”  and  no  intimation  was 
given  by  him  of  any  higher  appeal.  He  made  no  claim  that 
any  one  of  the  Chinese  churches,  of  which  nine  are  given, 
had  any  organized  connection  in  this  or  any  other  country 
with  any  other  church  or  church  court.  Nothing  higher  was 
claimed  than  their  individual  congregational  .sessions. 

My  critic  grievously  complains  of  me  as  doubting  his 
veracity  as  to  the  Araguay  Church,  and  graciously  recurs 
to  it  and  repeats  it  with  the  urgent  hope  that  I will  deal 
fairly  with  him  and  recognize  it  and  not  again  speak  of  such 
churches  as  other  than  genuine  Preshyterian  churches. 

My  dear  sir,  I did  not  question  your  story.  T accepted  it 
when  given  for  all  there  was  in  it,  as  it  was  intended  to 
illustrate  the  anomalous  condition  of  the  Chine.se  churches. 
And  I now  take  no  excej)tion,  as  I might,  to  any  variation 
of  it  in  the  new  and  more  recent  version.  But  when  you  (as 
now  indicated)  expect  and  demand  of  me  to  recognize  such 
a body,  to"u.se  your  own  language,  as  “organized  according 
to  the  Preshyterian  form  of  church  government,”  and  com- 
plainingly  censure  me  for  not  doing  so,  I must  not  only 
dissent  from  your  claim,  but  must  squarely  repudiate  your 
misconception  of  what  constitutes  a Presbyterian  church. 
The  idea,  that  if  a congregation  has  “elders  and  deacons”  it  is 
“organized  according  to  the  Pre.sbyterian  form  of  church 
government,”  will  not  pa.ss  muster.  Assuredly,  my  dear  sir. 


0 


this  is  an  eleuicntaiy  mistake,  and  it  seems  to  be  the  proton 
pseudos  of  your  manifest  bewildennent  and  it  may  have  mis- 
led others. 

It  is  radically  important  to  note  that  there  are  three  (3) 
constituents  of  every  particular  church  that  can  be  legiti- 
mately called  Presbyterian:  1st,  the  people  as  an  essential  fac- 
tor in  its  government,  choosing  their  own  officers  and  pastor; 
2d.  the  Elders,  or  Presbrters,  chosen  by  them,  as  its  highest 
officers  and  on  a parity;  and,  3d,  the  recognition  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical oneness  of  those  of  like  faith  and  order  in  out- 
ward and  visible  association,  so  that  each  part  is  subordinate 
to  the  whole  through  the  organic  union  and  agency  of  Ses- 
sion, Presbytery,  Synod,  and  General  Assembly.  The  power 
of  the  whole  touches  every  part.  It  is  not  the  holding  of 
one.  nor  of  two  of  these  principles  of  church  order  (as  by 
the  Araguay  and  the  Chinese  churches),  but  it  is  the  hold- 
ing and  the  realizing  of  all  three  that  constitute  a particular 
church  a Presbyterian  church.  This  fundamental  idea  of 
church  unity  is  essential  to  Presbyterianism  and  is  in  op- 
position to  the  theory  of  the  independence  (or  Congrega- 
tionalism) of  individual  churches.  "So  that."  to  quote 
one  of  the  highest  Pre.sbrterian  authorities,  "an  independent 
( particular  or  individual  Presbyterian  church)  is  as  much 
a solecism  as  an  independent  Christian,  or  as  an  independ- 
ent finger  of  the  human  body,  or  an  independent  branch  of 
a tree."  "And  so  ordain  I in  all  the  churches,  ' says  Paul. 

But  my  critic  has  the  courage  of  his  perver.se  conviction. 
Only  listen  to  the  following  proud ‘boast  which  he  makes  of 
the  independency  of  the  pseudo-Presbyterian  churches  or- 
ganized by  our  missionaries  in  heathen  lands.  He  says: 

e are  proud  of  the  fact  that  none  of  the 
churches  organized  by  any  of  our  missions  (with  the 
one  [unexplained]  exception  mentioned  alxtve)  have 
attempted  the  ab.surd  and  impracticable  arrangement 
of  being  in  organic  ecclesia.stical  connection  with 


10 


church  courts  in  this  country.  All  of  them,  however, 
have  been  organized  according  to  the  Presbyterian 
form  of  church  government.” 

Whom  does  my  critic  embrace  in  this  “We”?  If  the 
Southern  Church  at  large,  I protest  not  only  for  myself,  but 
for  the  seven  thoiLsand,  at  least,  who  have  not  bowed  their 
knees  to  this  strange  Baal  of  pseudo-Presbyterianism.  As 
he  speaks  officially  for  his  Chartered  Corporation,  and  none 
have  made  disclaimer,  it  is  competent  for  him  to  claim 
them.  And  yet  I feel  constrained  to  believe,  that  they  have 
inherited  a questionable  policy  from  the  near  and  revered 
pa<t,  and  sequaciously  drifted  into  its  enforcement  and  per- 
Ijetuation  Avithout  due  consideration.  Of  that  I feel  quite 
sure.  By  the  “We”  it  is  boastingly  denied  that  any  of  these 
mission  churches  have  ecclesiastical  connection  Avith  church 
courts,  such  as  Presbytery,  etc.,  in  this  country,  and  there 
is  no  intimation  of  their  having  connection  Avith  such  courts 
in  any  other  country.  This  is  a “proud”  confe.ssion  of  the 
correctness  of  my  statement  that  our  Southern  Church  has 
neither  churches,  church  courts,  nor  church  members  in 
heathen  lands.  The  third  element  is  absent.  As  indi- 
vidually independent  and  ignoring  church  unity,  they  are 
not  properly  or  technically  Presbyterian  churches.  As  hav- 
ing or  recognizing  a plurality  of  elders  in  each  congrega- 
tion, they  are  not  technically  Congregational  churches. 
Technically  and  strictly,  therefore,  they  are  neither  Presby- 
terian nor  Congregational.  They  do  not  fit  into  the  Con- 
gregational nor  either  the  Southern  or  the  Northern  Presby- 
terian Church  order.  They  are  anomalous.  They  are  not 
amphibious,  as  they  could  not  have  a normal  life  in  either 
connection.  Yet  they  are  severally  independent  and  have 
ruling  elders,  so  that  the  nearest  approach  I can  make  to 
naming  them  is  to  call  them  hybrids.  I knoAv  of  but  one 
such  church  in  the  United  States  Avhich  has  a history,  ex- 
planatory, and  by  courtesy  it  is  called  Presbyterian  because 


11 


it  ha.'  a luember  of  Presbytery  as  its  pa.stor.  The  eharaoter 
of  the  offspring  in  our  inissions  does  not,  therefore,  indieate 
its  parentage. 

This  pseudo-Presbyterian  and  non-denoininational  foreign 
mission  party — very  respectable  indeed — in  our  Southern 
Church,  which  my  critic  represents  and  defends,  not  only 
has  under  its  control  a chartered  organization  and  the 
handling  of  all  the  money  we  give  (or  invest)  for  foreign 
mi^'ions,  but  it  also  has  its  organ.  As  aiding  both  the  ‘‘'ordi- 
nary" and  extraordinary  members  of  our  Church  to  under- 
stand the  radical  nature  of  the  issue  in  controversy,  I will 
(piote  an  editorial  of  the  Christian  Observer,  June  ‘27,  1906, 
p.  3,  col.  2,  as  it  may  have  escaped  the  attention  of  some  of 
my  readers.  It  is  too  important  in  this  connection  to  be 
overlooked.  It  amazed  not  a feAv.  It  is  in  the  following 
words : 


‘‘CIII  RCHES  IX  HE.VTHEX  LAXDS. 

“It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  position  of  our 
Church  from  the  beginning  has  been  that  in  foreign 
lands  our  missionaries  organize  free-born  native 
churches.  There  is  no  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church  anywhere  outside  the  United  States.  Our 
missionaries  belong  to  our  Church,  but  their  con- 
verts do  not.  Some  of  these  converts  may  be  guilty 
of  polygamy.  Yet  no  one  has  the  right  to  say  that 
the  Southern  Church  harbors  polygamous  members, 
inasmuch  as  their  converts  are  members,  not  of  our 
Church  but  of  their  oavu.  The  nati\'e  Churcli,  under 
the  leadership  of  the  missionaries,  may  Avisely  be  left 
to  deal  Avith  polygamy.  It  is  a question  Avhich 
specially  concerns  them.’’ 

In  harmony  Avith  the  view  here  expressed,  and  perhaps  I 
may  say.  from  the  source  of  its  inspiration  there  appeared  in 
the  same  paper,  August  22,  1906.  a reA'iew  of  the  Assembly 
at  Green A'ille,  1906,  by  my  friend,  the  PeA’.  R.  H.  Fleming. 


12 


I).  I).,  of  Lyuc'hbui'g,  Mrgiiiia,  from  which  some  extracts 
must  be  submitted.  Dr.  Fleming  says: 

“Much  has  been  said  in  tlie  Assembly  and  else- 
where of  the  distinctive  principles  of  the  Southern 
Church.  But  it  seems  to  be  forgotten  that  one  of 
our  chief  characteristics,  and  that  which  until  our 
testimony  on  this  point  had  time  to  bear  fruit,  dis- 
tinguishes us  from  all  other  churches,  is  that,  from 
the  beginning,  we  have  not  attempted  to  organize 
our  Church  in  mission  lands.  It  is  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  China.  The  Presbyterian  Church  in 
Africa.  * * =t=  Synod  of  Virginia,  nor  the 

As.sefnbly  of  1904,  nor  that  of  1906,  has  any  sym- 
pathy with  polygamy  in  the  Church;  nor  has  it  any 
sympathy  with  an  attenph  to  govern  the  Church  in 
mission  lands.  The  Church  in  China,  or  the  Church 
in  Africa  is  free-born.  It  is  self-governing;  it  is  self- 
per})etuating ; the  members  of  the  Church  at  Luebo 
are  not  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  the  Church  in  the  United  States,  nor  of  any 
Presl)ytery.” 

How  could  indej)ciidency  or  individual  Congregationalism 
be  more  plainly  expres,sed?  Dr.  Fleming  took  the  tloor  after 
Dr.  Chester  at  the  Synod  and  did  not  cpiestion  a single  point 
in  my  statement  repeated  above.  Nor  did  any  member  of 
the  Synod  do  so.  In  fact.  Dr.  Fleming  accepted  and  de- 
fended the  indicated  condition. 

Here  we  have  the  new  doctrine  unccpiivocally  set  forth, 
(juite  in  harmony  with  the  oracular  editorial  of  the  Chrls- 
liaii  Ohfierrrr,  and  also  with  the  “proud”  ])roclamation  and 
oliicial  utterance  of  tlie  chartered  foreign  missionary  cor- 
poration of  the  Southern  Church,  Dr.  Fleming  says,  in 
terms:  “44iat,  from  the  beginning,  we  have  not  attempted 
to  organize  our  Church  in  mission  lands,”  and  claims  that 
tliis  non-denominational  character  of  our  foreign  missions 
differentiates  or  “distinguishas  iis  from  all  other  churches.” 
Tt  is  sufficiently  obvious  that,  in  this  matter,  our  Church  has 
to  deal  not  only  with  a condition  Init  with  a theory.  That 


13 


the  present  polygamous  and  non-denoniinational  and 
pseudo-Presbyterian  condition  is  as  above  indicated,  cannot 
be  successfully  questioned,  T believe,  however  tardy  the 
Church  may  have  been  in  waking  up  to  it.  That  the  awak- 
ening, and  the  rubbing  of  the  eyes,  have  been  measurably 
occasioned  by  the  discussion  of  polygamy,  since  1904,  must 
be  recognized  as  a state  of  fact. 

My  critic  follows  the  lead  of  the  Observer  and  of  Dr. 
Pdeming,  in  claiming  that  this  non-denominational  theory 
of  foreign  missions  has  been  the  doctrine  of  our  Church 
“from  the  beginning.”  T must  be  allowed,  confidently,  to 
challenge  this  declaration.  As  I read  the  facts  of  history 
they  do  not  sustain  it.  At  the  very  beginning,  in  further- 
ance of  our  foreign  mission  work  as  the  extension  of  our 
denomination  as  a branch  of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ, 
Presbyteries  were  organized  in  the  foreign  field  in  different 
countries;  1871  in  South  America,  1874  in  China  and  con- 
tinued on  the  list  till  1880 ; and  in  1886  the  Executive 
Committee  reported  to  our  Ceneral  Assendjly  that  it  had 
stated,  in  corre.spondence  with  “sister  chiirches  and  their 
missionaries,  that  the  prevailing  view  in  our  Church  favored 
the  method  of  having  Presbyteries  on  mission  ground  com- 
posed exclusively  of  native  Presbyters,  the  missionaries  hold- 
ing only  advisory  relations  to  the  Presbytery.”  (Alex. 
Digest,  })]).  49-55,  100.)  The  only  two  questions  legiti- 
mately raEed  in  the  Assembly  of  1876  were  (1)  whether  the 
Ceneral  As,sembly  or  the  8ynod  was  the  competent  and 
proper  authority  to  organize  these  Presbyteries;  and  (2) 
“whether  our  foreign  missionaries  should  become  members 
associated  with  natives  in  the  composition  of  Presbyteries.” 
The  decision  was  that  the  Synod  is  the  proper  organizing 
))ower  and  against  the  dual  association  or  membershi])  of 
Presbyters.  That  power  of  Synod  is  still  in  our  constitution 
as  it  was  then.  The  several  efforts  to  change  the  constitution 
touching  missions  were  decidedly  voted  down.  And  the 


14 


gratuitou.s  sugge-stiou  of  iioii-denominatioiuil  luisj^ioiis  never 
has  been  constitutionally  sanctioned  by  our  Cburcb. 

But  the  conservative  majority  relaxed  its  diligence  in 
1887,  and  the  minority  seems  to  have  improved  its  oppor- 
tunity, for  under  the  chartered  organization  now  doing  our 
foreign  mission  work,  since  1895,  explain  it  as  we  may,  all 
these  marks  of  our  denominational  presence  among  the 
foreign  nations  have  disappeared.  So  that  our  mission  in 
foreign  lands  has  become  a sort  of  non-denominational 
evangelism,  instead  of  the  definite  extension  and  establish- 
ment of  our  branch  of  the  visible  Church  whereof  the  fruit 
would  be  an  index  to  friend  and  foe  of  the  tree  that  bore  it. 

4'bis  niksion  work  from  18(!1  to  1895  was  conducted  by 
annual  committees  of  the  General  A.s.sembly.  Then  “a  body 
])olilic  and  cori)orate”  was  chartered  for  the  purpose  under 
the  laws  of  the  State  of  Tennessee.  Such  a step  may  have 
made  the  .spirits  of  Thornwell  and  others  turn  over  in  their 
graves  and  groan.  And  unless  this  corporation  faithfully 
obeys  its  charter,  which  subordinates  it  to  tbe  constitution  of 
the  Church,  without  foisting  unauthorized  novelties  into 
the  work  entrusted  to  it,  it  is  to  be  deprecated  as  a calamity 
and  a misfortune. 

There  are  some  antecedent  circumstances  which  should  be 
recalled,  for  they  .seem  to  .serve  as  a searchlight  on  the  vexed 
question  before  us.  Prior  to  1837,  the  Presbyterians  had 
done  their  foreign  mis.don  work  through  the  A.  B.  C.  P. 
M. — that  great  Congregational  organizatioii.  But  the  critical 
tem})er  of  that  controversy,  sharpened  and  informed  by  tbe 
experience  of  a quarter  of  a century  of  association  and  co- 
operation, led  to  the  entire  elimination  of  the  Congregational 
element  from  the  courts  and  operations  of  the  Church  -as  cc- 
clesia.stically  incompatible  with  Presbyterianism.  After  the 
division  of  1837,  the  Old  School  party,  from  which  some 
consider  that  our  Southern  Church  may  be  viewed  as  sul)- 
stantially  a descendant,  decided  that  it  was  its  duty  in  “our 
(its)  ilisti nctivc  character  as  a Church  of  Christ  to  send  the 


15 


gu:?ljel  to  the  heathen,  Jews  and  ^lohannnedans.’'  A plan 
was  .at  once  devised  as  a solemn  duty  in  the  sight  of  God 
“‘to  impart  to  others  the  same  good  and  in  the  same  form 
of  it  which  they  en.joyed  themselves.”  (Baird,  369,  370.) 

The  New  School  party  clung  to  the  Congregational  Board 
till  their  union  with  the  O.  S.  in  1870;  since  that,  their 
united  mi.ssions  have  been  strictly  denominational. 

When  our  Southern  Church  was  organized,  in  1861,  a new 
school  element  was  incorjwrated  in  it  (1863-4),  and  the 
non -denominational  idea  of  inis.sions,  fii’st  suggested  in  1876 
hy  way  of  argument,  has  run  a career  with  us.  Certainly  the 
introduction  anuong  us  of  this  old  bone  of  contention,  what- 
ever the  explanation,  is  most  unfortunate  and  augurs  only 
evil.  For  strict  Presbyterianism  never  has  been  and  never 
can  be  reconciled  to  it.  Some  individual  and  family  pedi- 
grees might,  perhaps,  be  an  interesting  study  in  this  con- 
nection. 

That  the  work  of  Christian  missions,  pro.jected  and  en- 
joined by  the  ^la.ster  in  the  Great  Commission,  consists  in 
the  organized  extension  of  the  denomination  engaged 
therein,  as  ostensibly  a branch  of  the  visible  church,  seems 
to  be  a definition  that  has  the  consensus  and  practical  sup- 
])ort  of  all  Christian  churches.  The  i^rofound  principle  of 
human  action  and  moral  duty  to  which  this  command  thus 
defined  appeals  is,  That  in  our  efforts  to  bless  the  destitute 
and  needy  with  the  gospel,  we  should  impart  it  to  them  in 
its  best  form  as  we  conceive  and  believe  it.  This  seems  to 
he  the  dictate  of  common  honesty,  in  the  exercise  of  a 
worthy  benevolence.  It  cuts  up  by  the  roots  the  specious 
and  fallacioas  objection,  ‘“'That  we  ought  not  to  seek  to  prop- 
agate our  own  distinetive  Presbyterian  body  in  various  parts 
of  the  world,  but  rather  to  disseminate  simply  the  principles 
and  doctrines  that  we  hold.”  (Alex.  Dig.,  53.)  This  would 
do  for  a school  of  philosophy  which  is  a human  embodiment 
of  individualism.  But  the  Gospel  is  a divine  institution  and 
not  a mere  scheme  of  speculative  opinions.  And  it  is  thus 


16 


stated  ill  our  Hook  of  Cliureli  Order,  par.  10;  “Olirist,  a.s 
King,  has  given  to  his  Church,  officers,  oracles  and  ordi- 
nances; and  especiallj’  has  he  ordained  therein  his  system 
of  doctrine,  government,  discipline  and  worship  * * * 

to  which  things  he  commands  that  nothing  be  added,  and 
that  from  them  naught  he  taken  away.”  It  is  with  this  or- 
ganized visible  church  that  our  ini.ssions  have  to  do.  And  our 
Confession  of  Faith  speaks  of  “The  visible  Church  * * 
the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  uo  ordi- 
nary possibility  of  salvation.”  (Ch.  xxv:  11.)  The  neglect 
of  this  visible  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth  is  the  crying 
sin  of  the  present.  God  is  jealous  of  its  honor.  And  any- 
thing in  the  life  or  proceedings  of  any  denomination  that 
discredits  it  is  to  he  deijrccated  as  pernicious  and  displeasing 
to  our  God. 

If  a chemi.st,  in  his  laboratory,  wishes  to  combine  a given 
gas  with  kindred  ga.scs,  his  lirst  concern  is  that  it  shall  he 
as  free  as  po.ssible  from  impurities.  The  strict  fidelity  of 
each  denomination  to  its  own  faith  and  order,  free  from 
Ihgotrv,  in  mission  work,  is  its  best  preparation  for  con- 
tributing its  ])art,  whether  by  co-operation  or  combination,  in 
transjilanting  the  gosjiel  into  the  foreign  held.  The  idea 
that  churches  can  ever  he  established  in  heathen  countries 
free  from  the  differences  of  Calvinism  and  Arminianism  in 
doctrine,  or  of  Independency,  Presbyterianism,  Prelacy,  or 
Pajiacy  in  government,  may  safely  he  set  down  as  child- 
ishly visionary.  It  is  going  too  far  to  claim  that  Christian 
ehurehes  accept  any  such  fanciful  scheme  or  agree  in  any 
such  jioliey  as  this  vain  and  suicidal  prcteiice  implies. 

And  for  auy  individual  church  to  attempt  to  exemplify  its 
faith  ill 'such  a formless,  colorless,  and  characterless  result 
1)V  its  own  self-abnegation,  instead  of  commending  itself  as 
rational,  would  rather  seem  to  indulge  a crazy  fanaticism. 
It  is  certainly  a delusion  to  think  and  to  act  on  the  idea  that 
we  can  trans])lant  conscientiously  our  Christianity  from 
Christendom  to  heathendom  without  our  dilfereuces,  actual 
or  ])otcntial,  .so  long  as  mortal  man  remains  human. 


17 


Although  this  communication  is  running  beyond  expected 
bounds,  there  is  another  anatter  which  cannot  be  .allowed  to 
pass  unanswered.  In  the  matter  of  establishing  churches 
in  foreign  lands,  my  critic  censoriously  arraigns  me  for  mi.s- 
representation  in  the  following  fashion : 

'T)r.  Laws  refers  to  the  policy  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  North  as  in  contrast  with  that  of  onr  Church 
in  this  particular.  There  has  never  been  any  such 
contrast.” 

Let  ns  look  into  that.  As  to  the  labor  of  the  two  churches 
in  the  foreign  held,  my  newspaper  article  under  criticism 
mentions  two  points  of  oonti’ast : (1)  The  tolerance  of 
polygamy  by  one  and  its  intolerance  by  the  other;  and  (2) 
tlie  treatment  of  baptized  converts  by  the  one  as  contrasted 
with  their  treatment  by  the  other.  And  now,  (3d),  I will 
lay  an  important  document  before  my  readers  which  will  aid 
them  in  forming  an  intelligent  and  valid  opinion  of  the 
fairness  of  this  official  criticism  and  also  of  the  critic  him- 
self, in  some  important  particulars. 

Last  September,  to  make  sure  of  my  footing,  I addressed 
a letter  to  Mr.  Eobert  E.  Speer,  one  of  the  F.  M.  secretaries 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  Li.  S.  A.,  submitting  some  ques- 
tions, and  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  requested  that  his 
very  distinguished  and  venerable  colleagues,  Drs.  Ellinwood 
and  Brown,  would  join  him  in  the  answer.  (Their  reply  is 
dated  September  IS,  1906.)  I will  for  brevity  only  give  the 
answer  to  the  first  question. 

“September  18,  1900. 

“My  Dear  Dr.  Laws: 

‘AVe  have  received  your  letter  of  September  loth 
with  its  inquiries. 

“Yon  ask  first:  ‘Are  the  baptized  converts  in  your 
foreign  missions  counted  and  treated  as  church  mem- 
bers and  under  the  -care  of  your  General  Assembly 
in  the  U.  S.  A.?’  Yes,  until  the  Presbyteries  with 
which  their  churches  are  connected  are  separated 
from  onr  General  Assembly  and  recognized  as  con- 
stituting an  independent  national  church.  In 
Africa,  for  example,  all  church  members  are  mem- 


18 


hers  of  the  Preshyterian  Church  in  the  U.  S.  A.,  and 
the  Presbyteries  are  related  to  onr  General  Assembly 
exactly  as  Presbyteries  in  Pennsylvania  and  New 
Jersey  are.  In  India,  however,  within  the  last  three 
years  all  onr  Presbyteries  have  been  released  by  onr 
Assembly  and  are  now  parts  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  India  and  church  members  there  have  no 
connection  with  onr  General  Assemhl}'.  The  same 
is  true  of  Japan  and  of  part  of  China  and  will  he 
Irne  soon  of  all  ot  China.  But  until  these  inde- 
pendent  national  chnrcheis  are  set  up,  it  has  been 
customary  to  organize  churches  and  Presbyteries  in 
connection  with  onr  General  xVssembly,  the  Pre.sby- 
tcries  being  connected  with  those  home  Synods,  as 
a rule,  from  which  the  majority  of  missionaries  orig- 
inally forming  the  Presbyteries  went  out.  So  long 
as  the  Presbyteries  on  the  foreign  field  are  connectecl 
with  onr  General  Assembly,  onr  General  Assembly 
legislates  for  them  on  such  questions  as  properly  come 
before  it  and  its  decisions  are  l)inding  on  these  Pres- 
byteries.’" 

>fc  :|c  5|c  Jjc  * 

■‘Very  sincerely  yours, 

“(Signed)  Arthur  J.  Brown. 

“Robert  E.  Speer. 

“F.  F.  Ellinwood.” 

J'here  are  some  instructive  and  important  points  so  ap- 
))arcnt,  in  this  statement  from  such  eminent  mission  au- 
thorities, that  they  should  be  distinctly  though  briefly  noted. 

1.  There  is  here  no  abnegation,  nor  repudiation  of  the 
distinctive  denominational  character  of  the  home  chnrcn. 

(Indeed,  the  mission  work  of  the  Congregational  churches, 
as  the  Baptists  and  the  A.  B.  C.  E.  M.,  is  avowedly  for  de- 
nominational church  extension.) 

2.  The  churches  organized  by  the  missionaries  of  the 
Northern  Presbyterian  Church  are  “in  organic  ecclesiastical 
connection  with  the  church  courts  in  this  country.  (Not- 
withstanding my  critic  pronounces  it  “ahsvrd  and  imprac- 
ticahle,”  the  success  of  it  has  been  marvelous — 444  churches; 
()P>,000  members,  and,  last  year.  10,000  converts.) 

3.  In  their  mission  churches— “in  Africa,  for  example. 


19 


all  church  members  are  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
ill  the  U.  8.  A.,”  subject  to  its  government  and  discipline. 

(It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  dogmatical  denial  of  such 
obtrusive  contrasts  can  be  creditable  to  the  intelligence  or 
careful  scrupulousness  of  my  official  critic.  But  this  is  not 
all.) 

4.  Within  the  past  few  years  a General  A.ssembly  has  been 
organized  in  India  and  become  an  independent  body.  But 
prior  to  that,  for  more  than  half  a century,  the  churches 
thus  set  apart  had  been  cherished  and  nurtured  in  organic 
connection  with  the  Northern  Church  in  preparation  for 
this  devoutly  anticipated  destiny. 

(Is  this,  or  is  it  not,  in  contrast  with  the  policy  and  prac- 
tice of  organizing  so-called  free-born  churches  out  of  the 
newly  converted  heathen,  and  at  once  dropping  the  reins  on 
their  necks  and  starting  them  off  individually  as  national 
churches,  like  young  partridges  with  the  shells  on  their 
backs,  and  without  proper  ecclesiastical  disciplinary  training 
for  such  autonomy,  as  though  the  discipline  of  church  and 
Christian  life  would  come  to  them  “by  nature,”  like  reading 
and  writing  to  I)ogberr3^  This  Dogberry  scheme  of  found- 
ing national  churches  should  “give  pause.” 

(On  this  preparation  of  mission  churches  for  National 
Autonomy  .see  “Polygamy  and  Citizenship,”  pp.  20-23.) 

5.  In  regard  to  China,  my  critic  is  also  at  fault.  He  says: 

“The  Presbyteries  of  China  have  been  organized  into  a 
Synod  * * * organic  connection  with  any  for- 

eign church.”  The  least  that  can  be  said  of  this  is  that  it 
is  an  unrectifiable  and  inexcusable  misstatement  of  a 
state  of  fact.  From  the  1906  miniites  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Prasbyterian  Church  in  the  U.  8.  A.,  which 
lie  before  me,  I learn  that  there  are,  at  this  very  time,  three 
Synods  in  China,  with  a dozen  Presbyteries  and  thousands 
of  members  connected  with  this  Church  court  in  the  U.  8.  A. 
ITowe^r,  after  long  years  of  devoted  service  as  a nursing 
mother,  as  in  India,  these  churches  have  been  trained  in 
her  family  for  a transition  which  they  are  now  in  process 
of  making  with  loving  approval.  It  may  be  consummated 


20 


f 

next  suiunier.  (For  this  sec  Minutes  1906,  p.  102.)  But  of 
this  my  critic  .seems  to  be  quite  oblivious.  One  of  the 
Synods  did  not  ask  for  the  change  and  may  not  enter  into 
the  movement. 

But  I am  now  about  to  give  what  has  been  to  me  a genuine 
surprise.  It  relates  to  onr  mid-China  mission,  whose  churches 
my  critic  j)roudly  boasts  have  not  been  guilty  of  the  ab- 
surdity of  ecclcsia.stical  connection  with  any  church  court 
in  this  country.  I have  received  corre.spondence  from  China 
for  more  than  half  a century,  and  will  now  quote  a letter 
written  from  China  to  a friend  some  time  after  the  meeting 
of  the  Synod  of  \hrginia  referred  to  above.  It  .says  relative 
to  (»nr  Church : 

“The  mid-China  vii>ision  notv  lum  ita  <nrn  one 
Preshjifery  which  one  of  secer(d  forming  a Synod 
in  connection  with  the  Prexhyferie>i  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  r.  S.  .1.  This  in  niy  ini)id  is  the  cor- 
rect policy.” 

But  this  is  not  all.  Notice  the  reason  a.ssigned  for  this 
course  of  action,  which  is  that  they  “cannot  form  Presby- 
teries which  sh(dl  be  an  organic  part  of  the  home  Church.” 

1 know  not  whether  my  critic  is  in  po.ssession  of  this 
.startling  information,  or,  if  so,  whether  he  has  conde.scended 
to,  give  it  to  “ordinary  people.”  Tf  not,  I hope  he  will  re- 
ceive this  news  with  becoming  docility  and  inwardly  and 
prayerfully  digest  it. 

I confe.ss  that  I feel  no  surprise  at  Presbjderian  mis- 
sionaries who  love  their  Pre.sbyterianism  breaking  away  from 
the  cramped  and  cabined  scheme  of  independency  and 
isolated  church  individualism,  so  incongruous  therewith, 
and  gliding  into  another  but  kindred  fold  rather  than  en- 
dure their  isolation.  And  I sympathize  with  his  expressed 
sur])rise  “that  the  Chnrch  is  willing  to  let  the  condition 
of  things  in  Nashville  continue.” 

The  approval  of  this, irregular  novelty  of  non-denomina- 
tionalism  and  pseudo-Presbyterianism  by  our  General  As- 
sembly, so  far  from  legitimating  these  aberrations,  only  ag- 


21 


gravales  the  enibarrassineiit.  Every  intelligent  Prashyterian, 
Pre.^byter  or  layman,  is.  bound  to  accept,  as  a valid  common- 
place, the  following  deliverance  of  the  0.  S.  General  As- 
sembly, made  some  seventy  years  ago:  ‘AVe  believe  that  our 
})owcrs,  as  a judicatory,  are  limited  and  prescribed  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Cburch.  Whatever  any  As- 
sembly may  do  which  it  is  not  authorized  by  the  Constitu- 
tion to  do,  is  not  binding  on  any  inferior  judicatory,  nor  on 
any  subsequent  .Vssembly.”*  And  to  the  same  test  must  be 
brought  the  approval  of  male  appointments  of  the  committee 
by  Presbyteries;  and  the  charter  of  the  foreign  missionary 
corporation  distinctly  subordinates  it,  not  simply  to  the  Gen- 
eral .Vssembly,  but  “to  the  Constitution  of  said  Presbyterian 
Church,”  to  the  extent  not  incompatible  with  the  laws  of  the 
State.  And  the  Assembly  has  no  power  to  authorize  the 
Corporation  to  neglect  or  violate  its  charter  obligations. 

And  I believe  that  this  Corporation  is  so  seriously  de- 
parting from  its  chartered  duties  that  if  the  General  Assem- 
hly  do  not  act,  then  an  injunction  should  be  sued  out  re- 
straining it  from  neglect  as  at  Luebo,  and  also  from  mal- 
fciisance  in  using  the  money  of  the  Church  in  ways  not  duly 
authorized. 

Dr.  Chester  officially  warns  the  good  people  of  our 
Church,  who  are  so  liberally  supporting  our  foreign  mis- 
sions as  now  conducted,  that  they  “need  not  be  alarmed  by 
any  of  the  statements  contained  in  the  article  of  Dr.  Laws.” 
It  is  therein  virtually  confessed  that  if  my  statements  arc 
ti'uc,  there  is  reason  for  alarm.  But  their  truthfulness  is 
indicated  above,  and  I will  be  obliged  and  stand  corrected 
if  in  a single  [)articular  any  one  can  show  them  to  be  sub- 
stantially untrue.  Oh,  no ; ignoring  the  truth  of  the  situa- 

*Tlie  actions  of  the  General  Asseinbh’,  hitherto,  tolerating  or  ap- 
]>roving  irregularities  in  its  foreign  missions  are  absolutely  destitute  of 
any  binding  force  whatever  on  subsequent  assemblies  or  inferior  cburch 
courts.  These  deliverances  cannot  be  intelligently  pronounced  constitu- 
tional. Moreover,  the  matters  in  question  are  not  matters  of  opinion  or 
simple  expediency,  but  of  chui’ch  order  and  duty,  where  discretion  is 
superseded  by  covenant  obligation. 


22 


(ion,  lie  fraiilically  pleads  that  “they  have  only  to  read  the 
thrilUny  reports  which  are  constantly  being  published  in 
oar  Church  papers.”  This  is  simply  to  beg  the  question  at 
issue.  Yes,  it  is  by  those  very  “reports”  that  hitherto  we 
have  been  so  seriously  and  innocently  misled.  The  Church 
has  su})posed  that  our  foreign  mission  work  is,  as  we  all 
believe  it  should  be,  for  the  extension  of  our  own  denomi- 
nation ; and  words,  words,  words  have  hypnotized  us  into  the 
easy  faith  that  the  churches  spoken  of  are  such  as  we  have 
and  know  here  at  home.  I speak  with  some  feeling  as  well 
as  confidence,  for  I confess  that  I have  been  one  of  the  dupes. 
But  at  last  I have  waked  up,  and  I am  intensely  in  earnest 
when  I say  that  I shall  do  all  I can,  with  God’s  help,  to 
awaken  others.  I have  given  my  money  under  a false  im- 
pression, and  T am  sure  others  have  done  the  same;  and  I 
am  not  alone  in  resolving,  unless  a change  is  promptly  made, 
to  give  no  more  for  this  sort  of  mission  work.  I could  name 
more  than  one  pastor  who  on  the  forward  movement  ])lan 
pro})ose  to  specially  covenant  their  representatives  in  the 
mission  field  to  conform  to  our  standards  by  not  baptizing 
polygamists  and  by  organizing  their  converts  into  genuine 
Presbyterian  Churches,  according  to  our  Book  of  Church 
Order  (ch.  2,  sec.  5),  and  to  report  the  same,  as  is  provided 
in  paragraph  78,  la.><t  clause,  &c.,  thus  repudiating  the  false 
l)lca  (hat  our  standards  do  not  provide  for  foreign  missions. 

'I'lie  ])croration  of  my  critic  has  the  same  sophomoric  and 
frothy  vagueness  (hat  has  too  long  been  doled  out  to  us  on 
foreign  missions,  instead  of  giving  us,  “plain  i)eople”  (hough 
we  he.  (he  plain  facls  of  the  situation.  And  he  who  shall 
]ilcad,  though  with  an  air  of  piety  and  sincerity,  that  these 
ignorant  and  false  Auews  should  not  be  disturbed,  and  that, 
if  only  sincerely  entertained,  they  will  be  more  effective  than 
the  simple,  plain,  straightforward  truth,  deserves  to  be  re- 
garded and  treated  as  an  impostor.  We  have  too  much  ex- 
perience with  chaffy  and  superficial  evangelism  at  home,  in 
parading  its  numbers  and  di.screditing  the  labors  and  the 
work  of  the  regularly  organized  and  solid  churches  and 
pastorates,  to  have  any  abiding  faith  in  such  work  abroad. 


23 


The  present  outlook  is  against  it.  This  work  wrongs  the 
missionaries  themselves. 

I think  I see  a most  impressive  object  lesson  and  an  un- 
answerable argument  in  the  career  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee of  Home  IMissions.  It  is  chartered  under  the  laws  of 
the  State  of  Georgia.  Yet  that  Corporation  strictly  conforms 
to  our  Church  order  and  faithfully  aims  at  our  denomina- 
tional Church  extension  in  the  regions  beyond.  And  in  my 
judgment  its  work  is  not  only  surprisingly  successful,  but  it 
gives  more  solid  and  satisfying  promise  of  the  future  than 
does  that  of  the  Corporation  for  foreign  missions,  with  its 
irregularities  and  lawless  aberrations  and  superficial  and  ex- 
perimental novelties.  Yet  the  law  of  the  Church  and  the 
authority  of  God’s  word,  for  both,  are  identically  the  same. 

This  whole  matter  can  be  promptly  rectified  by  a single 
deliverance  on  the  part  of  the  General  Assembly.  And  the 
next  Assembly,  and  every  succeeding  one,  as  long  as  I live, 
unless  effected  prior  to  that  not-very-distant  event,  will  be 
memorialized  to  rectify  this  p.seudo-Presbyterian  and  non- 
denoniinational  mission  work  of  our  Church.  Brethren,  we 
should  first  take  this  mote  out  of  our  own  eye. 

But  if  the  conscience  and  the  intelligence  of  the  Church 
are  so  changed  as  to  approve  of  this  new  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice of  foreign  missions,  then  in  the  holy  name  of  truth  and 
consistency,  change  the  constitution  so  as  to  differentiate  in 
principle  the  foreign  from  home  missions — though  a 
desperate  alternative — and  harmonize  the  prayers  and  gifts 
of  our  devoted  people  with  the  actual  condition  of  our  for- 
eign mission  work.  Place  on  the  brow  of  our  Church  the 
jewel  not  of  self-consistency,  but  let  it  be  consistency  with 
the  truth.  Either  change  the  work  or  change  the  consti- 
tution. 

It  is  not  only  the  privilege,  but  the  right  and  duty,  of  the 
humblest  member  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  hold  its 
courts  and  agencies  to  strict  account.  My  exposure  of  the 
condition  of  our  foreign  mission  work  is  not  done  in  a 
pessimistic  spirit,  but  with  an  honest  and  sincere  solicitude 


24 


for  the  good  of  our  Church.  Corruptio  optimi  pessima  esi — ■ 
The  best  things  when  corrupted  become  the  worst. 

All  this  has  a vital  bearing  “anent”  all  questions  of 
union.  The  internal  reformation  of  our  Church  is  vastly 
more  important  to  us  than  the  formation  of  any  external 
relations  can  be,  and  should  not  be  pushed  aside  thereby. 
.Moreover,  the  manifestly  lapsed  condition  of  our  Church, 
in  the  respects  indicated,  should  check  even  the  desire,  in 
our  present  condition,  for  any  new  complications.  Un- 
doubtedly, in  unanticipated  ways,  these  lapses  and  irregu- 
larities would  turn  up  or  crop  out  to  disturb  and  embarrass 
any  new  and  untried  connections.  Those  who  accept  and 
approve  these  abnormalities  should  naturally  shrink  from 
and  oppose  an  association,  in  various  ways,  incongruous 
therewith.  And  those  opposed  to  them  should  favor  the 
prospect  of  the  needed  internal  reformation,  apart  from  any 
new  complications.  Wash  our  linen  at  home. 

This  is  a valid  though  novel  and  alternative  viewpoint 
from  which  to  decline  for  the  present,  at  least,  any  change 
of  our  autonomous  ecclesiastical  position,  involved  in  the 
adoption  of  the  Charlotte  or  any  other  articles  of  superfluou.s 
inachinery. 

“lie  that  covereth  his  transgressions  shall  not  prosper: 

“But  vhoso  confesseth  and  forsaketh  them  shall  obtain 
mercy.”  (Prov.  xxviii  : 13.) 

It  is  vain  to  attempt  to  ignore  or  by  criticism  to  suppress 
or  choke  down  the  views  here  submitted.  They  will  not 
down  till  the  truth  prevails,  and  that  will  multiply  fruitful- 
nes.s. 

“ Truth  crushed  to  earth  will  rise  again, 

The  eternal  years  of  God  are  hers ; 

But  Error,  wounded,  writhes  in  pain, 

And  dies  amidst  his  worshipers.” 

Samuel  Spahr  Laws. 

Wasiiikgton,  D.  C.,  1733  Q Street  N.  W., 

March  7,  1907. 


[529331 


